Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Development Authority vs Sri M Narasimhaiah on 5 January, 2017
Bench: Chief Justice, R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF JANUARY, 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
WRIT APPEAL NO 3306 OF 2016 AND
WRIT APPEAL NOS.3481 TO 3482 OF 2016 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T.CHOUDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA KRUPA WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER
NOW REPRESENTED BY LAO. ... APPELLANT
(BY MR.D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY SR.COUNSEL
A/W SRI.G.LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI M.NARASIMHAIAH
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
AGED 67 YEARS
2
R/AT NO.58
KAMAKSHIPALYA
BENGALURU - 560 079.
2. SRI N.VIJAY
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
AGED 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.58
KAMAKSHIPALYA
BENGALURU - 560 079.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S.BUILDING
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR COUNSEL A/W
SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2
SRI.V.SREENIDHI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
---
These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the order passed
in W.P.Nos.14426-427 of 2016 and 15523 of 2016 dated
21.04.2016.
These appeals coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day,
THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the following:
3
JUDGMENT
Although the appeals are barred by limitation, by consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the appeals are taken up for preliminary hearing.
2. These are appeals against the judgment and order dated April 21, 2016, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge holding that the scheme for formation of the layout has been abandoned. The acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioners stood, therefore, quashed.
3. Initially, it was proposed to acquire 225 acres of land. In the final notification, 160 acres were notified, but the award was passed in respect of 98 acres of land.
A notification was issued under sub-Section (1) of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, releasing 82 acres of land. 4
4. Therefore, roughly 20 acres of land are left for the purpose of formation of layout. The lands too are standing in isolated pieces and, therefore, layout cannot be formed.
5. Therefore, the Hon'ble Single Judge was right in holding that the scheme to form the layout stood frustrated.
6. Mr.D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, learned senior advocate appearing in support of the appeals, relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court of India in 'OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED versus BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS' reported in (2011)3 SUPREME COURT CASES 139, in order to highlight that it has been held that when a scheme stood lapsed, the acquisition might not lapse.
7. The Supreme Court of India in OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED (supra), observed that the situation depends on the facts and circumstances of a given case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the entire attempt to form the layout stood frustrated.
5
8. We do not find any merit in the appeals.
9. The application for condonation of delay stands dismissed. Consequently, the appeals are, also, dismissed.
10. In view of the dismissal of the appeals, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is, accordingly, dismissed.
11. There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE RV